Featured Video

13 January 2014

You see as normal a world in which Europeans are continually insulted
by Jews for being “Nazis”, even the Europeans whose ancestors fought
against the Nazis. You see as normal a world in which every
manifestation of European nationalism is stigmatised as Nazism and
greeted with special repressive measures.

In this world, flayed by guilt, which they passively and meekly
accept and internalise, Europeans have no chance of defending their
countries against islamisation. Seen as tainted by some kind of “Nazi”
original sin, the only way Europeans can redeem themselves is to mutely
hand their countries over to the aliens and hope for the best.

You see this world as normal because that’s the world we live in.

But I don’t see this world as normal. It is built on a falsified
narrative of 20th century history, one which stresses the evils of
nationalism, racism and right-wing politics. An authentic history,
however, would acknowledge that anti-nationalism, political prejudice
and left-wing politics had consequences that were as destructive, if not
more destructive, than nationalism, and that the excesses of
nationalism were among those consequences. In other words, extreme
nationalism was a reaction to artificially-imposed extreme
anti-nationalism.

Those anti-nationalist ideas have been expressed in
ideologies like Communism and multiculturalism. Each of these movements,
if they even deserve to be considered separate movements, has exhibited
the vastly disproportionate involvement of diaspora Jews in the
fermentation of their ideas, their promotion through intellectual
discourse and their implementation at the policy level. Anti-nationalism
is, literally, the worst idea in history.

If you could quantify the
misery and death the violation of the nationalist principle – the idea
that a people should live in a homogeneous ethnic group in its own
territory under its own government – has provoked, it would be
staggering to contemplate. History is largely the chronicle of the
unpleasantness that arises when this principle is violated.

The islamisation of Europe is the consequence of the elevation of
anti-nationalism to be the dominant moral ideal of our age. Immigration
is the most obvious consequence of the elite’s embrace of this
destructive ideal. And islamisation is the consequence of immigration.

When people are infected by HIV, they don’t die of HIV. HIV is just a
state of weakness. It is when they catch a secondary infection in this
vulnerable state that fatality results. That’s how it is with modern
Europe. Islam is not the problem. Islam is what will kill us. But it’s
the secondary infection, not the underlying malady. The underlying
malady is anti-nationalism.

To some Europeans, it will no doubt sound banal to say that
islamisation is the consequence of immigration because, for many of
them, the two are inseparable. But this is much less obvious to
Americans, since America has been a country of immigration since its
inception. Because the American influence is dominant within the
Counterjihad movement, and because much of the Counterjihad movement
wishes to make itself as inoffensive as possible to elite opinion, in a
pitiful attempt to win mainstream acceptance, this fairly obvious truth
goes generally unacknowledged. Many Counterjihad activists will abstain
from saying anything about immigration for fear of being accused of
racism.

A more rounded history of the 20th century would be the clearest
possible refutation of the ideal of multiculturalism. It would show that
the fact of having different peoples living in the same territory
inevitably produces unpleasant results. Even after centuries, separate
peoples retain their own sense of ethnic distinctness because the urge
to empathise with your own ancestral kin group is an ineradicable part
of human nature. Cherishing their own separateness, these distinct
ethnic groups inevitably generate conflicts of interests and end up
plotting against one another.

The Jews plotted against the Europeans in
whose countries they were living and the Europeans plotted back, or vice
versa. It doesn’t matter. The point is that the best way to have a
harmonious world is to have separate peoples living in their own
territories. That is the policy conclusion that an authentic 20th
century history would tend to lead to.

The warped narrative we have all
been treated to hitherto, however, suggests exactly the opposite
conclusion, namely that nationalism, ethnic identification, and the
quest for territorial homogeneity is a terrible scourge which we must
all be on constant guard against; that having different peoples living
in the same territory is a great and enriching thing; and that all we
need is a state willing to victimise the majority population,
criminalise its free expression and use its power to crush any incipient
manifestation of pride or self-assertion among its people.

The recent persecution of Golden Dawn is a good example of where the
dominant narrative takes us. Now, Golden Dawn are very far from being my
political ideal. Whatever their imperfections, however, they were one
of the best hopes for stopping the islamisation of Greece and Europe in
the only way that actually matters: achieving governmental power and
using it to stop Muslim immigration and facilitate or enforce Muslim
ex-migration.

That hope may now have been extinguished, partly through
direct and indirect pressure from Jewish organisations; and partly
through the mythologised narrative of 20th century history that assigns
some demonic significance to nationalism, racism and right-wing politics
more generally. The EDL likewise have been wounded by the same bizarre
European guilt obsessions arising from this distorted account of
history.

Jews generally have no difficulty with the concept of ulterior, even
subconscious, motivation. Freud, after all, who pioneered the concept of
the subconscious, was a Jew. It is common to hear, for example,
European governments accused of disguised or subconscious antisemitism
for their policies towards Israel or the Palestinians. Why, then, do you
have such difficulty with the idea that the Jews active in Communist
movements could have had ulterior or even subconscious motivations
related to their Jewishness?

Are we really expected to believe it was
pure coincidence that a group of excluded outsiders embraced and
implemented an ideology that denigrated almost every aspect of
mainstream European society, that sanctioned its deconstruction, the
erasure of all its traditions, the wiping out of Christianity, the
suppression of European patriot movements and the criminalisation of
antisemitism?

I don’t take accusations of antisemitism any more seriously than I
take accusations of islamophobia or racism. These are terms designed to
shut down rational discussion by imputing impure motivations to
opponents and elevating subjective considerations such as emotion and
motivation above the core criterion of objective truth. In the world of
serious discourse, however, a person’s motivations don’t matter. Facts
matter. It is examination of the facts that has led me to take a
critical view of the influence Jews have had on European history through
their promotion of anti-nationalist ideas. Not that it matters, but I
was emotionally well-disposed towards Jews prior to becoming aware of
these facts. If any of the facts I have cited are inaccurate, I would
welcome their correction.

But that would be to engage in rational
discourse. And we have seen no sign of a willingness to do that. Even
you, in your comment, make no attempt to cite any factual inaccuracy.
The post you are responding to consists almost entirely of quotes from a
Jewish historian who acknowledges the Jewish role in the Communist
dictatorships and balances this presentation of facts, overly so I would
say, by offering a sympathetic appreciation of the context in which the
Jews made the choices that they did.

Instead of rational engagement, we see exactly what I expected when I
decided to broach this issue: the de rigueur insults of antisemitism,
much like the de rigueur insults of islamophobia, and the silent
withdrawal of support from websites that claim to be part of a
Counterjihad movement. It is clear that these websites are primarily
engaged, not in resisting Islamic Jihad, but in promoting the
(perceived) interests of Jewry.

They are interested in resisting Islam
only insofar as the Islamic agenda conflicts with the interests of
Jewry, which it clearly does to a significant degree. But that far and
no further. When the two agendas come into conflict, the anti-jihad
agenda falls by the wayside. Even the Counterjihad sites run by gentiles
fear the disapproval of Jews, either because they are economically
reliant on them in some way or because they have internalised the codes
of conduct created to delegitimise criticism of Jews.

As I said, this response was anticipated when I first started talking
about this issue. Nonetheless, it is dismaying to see the lack of moral
and intellectual integrity in people you once respected. These are
people who spend much of their lives presenting tangible evidence to a
hostile mainstream audience unwilling to set aside its preconceptions in
favour of the facts. At every turn, they are accused of having impure
motivations, of being animated by hatred.

You would hope, then, that
these same people, having faced down the intimidating accusation of
wickedness themselves, having bravely brandished factual truth in the
face of the hostile arbiters of acceptable opinion, would themselves,
when they found their own preconceptions challenged, be better than
their own adversaries had been. But, tragically, they’re not. When
presented with facts that challenge their preconceptions about Jews,
they react in exactly the same way that their mainstream interlocutors
do when presented with facts that jar with their preconceptions about
Muslims.

The notion that a people – any people – could provoke a mindless,
irrational hatred in almost everyone it comes into contact with is a
very strange one, much like the idea that a religion could provoke
irrational hatred and fear in anyone who comes into contact with its
practitioners.

Yet these very strange ideas are accepted without
challenge in the mainstream discourse of our times. If I claimed, for
example, that I knew of a dog that was persecuted everywhere it went:
other dogs barked at it and attacked it; no one would give it food;
children would throw stones at it for no reason; drivers would swerve to
try and run it over, etc. the story would provoke extreme scepticism.

It would sound so utterly fantastical, so at variance with our normal
understanding of the world, as to hint almost at something supernatural.
Individuals who claimed to be persecuted in this way would be classed
as paranoid schizophrenic. Rather than indulge these fantasies, the best
way to help someone suffering from this affliction would be to explain
to them that other people’s responses to them would be governed by their
own behaviour, just like every other person in the world, and that the
idea of being singled out for persecution in some fateful way was
absurd. The fact that so many seemingly rational Jews can take seriously
the idea that they have some mystical identity which causes them to be
persecuted for no reason is deeply disturbing.

This bespeaks an
Oriental, non-European mindset in which things happen because of
supernatural agency. The European mind, by contrast, seeks rational
explanations for the way the world works.

When one people attempts to live as a discrete minority in the
homeland of another, setting itself apart, adopting an us-and-them
mentality, favouring its own in-group in every interaction, it is going
to end badly, sooner or later. This is simply human nature in operation.
It is not the result of some mystical evil called antisemitism.

The lesson to be drawn from the tragic experience of the Jews throughout
history is that anti-nationalism – in other words having different
peoples living in the same territory – is a bad idea. Yet most Jews, at
least diaspora Jews, have drawn exactly the opposite conclusion. No
people can be secure without a homeland of its own. yet the effect of
the anti-nationalist ideas advocated by so many Jews is that the peoples
of Europe will lose control of their homelands.

I have to say I am repulsed, but not surprised, by the inability of
Jews to acknowledge fault. It is the perfect analogue of the Muslim
inability to acknowledge fault because it conflicts with their
Koran-mandated self-image as the “perfect nation”. How is it antisemitic
to simply take note of the fact that anti-nationalist ideas have had
destructive effects on the world and that Jews have been
disproportionately involved in generating them, advocating them and
implementing them? If I take note of the fact that Socialistic ideas
have had destructive effects on the world and that Scots have been
disproportionately involved in generating them, advocating them and
implementing them, does that make me antiscotistic or Scotophobic?

Why can you Jews not make such a simple acknowledgement yourself? Are
you so steeped in a lachrymose narrative of victimhood in which
innocent Jews suffer continuously at the hands of evil goy that you
cannot admit that Jews, like every other people on earth, have, at
times, had conflicts of interest with other peoples and, at times, have
committed grievous wrongs against those other peoples? No European
people that I am know of claims to have innocently glided through
history without ever having had a conflict of interest with other
peoples, without ever having engaged in contention with other peoples
and, at times, having wronged those other peoples.

To my knowledge,
Muslims are the only other people who make this claim. The Koran tells
Muslims they are the “Perfect Nation”. Jews believe they are the Chosen
People. Although rarely voiced publicly these days, it is clear that
this idea still influences the outlook of many Jews. Nothing else can
account for such a reluctance to acknowledge fault or the strength of
the curious conviction that a people is destined to be the constant
target of persecution and that this persecution will be completely
unrelated to its own actions.

You say you have no difficulty blaming Jews when appropriate and then
cite an example in which you blame Jews for not resisting Nazism more
forcefully. But this was mere passivity on the part of the Jews, not
actual wrong-doing against another people. Can you give me any example
from history in which Jews engaged in wrong-doing against another
people?

I have to say that the unwillingness of Jews to acknowledge
responsibility for their historical actions takes me much closer to a
feeling of general antisemitism than my awareness of the Jewish role in
Communism does. The Jewish role in Communism is a detail of history from
a time in which there were many mitigating circumstances to explain the
choices Jews made. The Jewish unwillingness to acknowledge
responsibility is not a historical curio, however. It is right here
among us in the present day and it comes from Jews who live in
completely secure circumstances and who otherwise sound like reasonable
people.

We could compare the Jewish role in the atrocities of Communism
to the Turkish Genocide of the Armenians in the WW1 era. As various
diplomats have pointed out when attempting to persuade the Turkish
government to be rational on this issue, this doesn’t necessarily have
anything to do with modern Turkey. If Turkey acknowledged that the
genocide had occurred, admitted wrong-doing by a previous generation of
Turks and expressed its regrets, the issue would be closed and we could
move on.

The fact that modern Turkey is unwilling to do this, however,
hints that something sinister and ugly is going on. It suggests that
whatever attitudes lay behind the Armenian Genocide still exist. And
Jewish unwillingness to acknowledge their culpability in relation to the
atrocities of Communism evokes the same possibility.

Discussion and exploration of Jewish guilt in Communism is important for the following reasons:

1) It would establish that anti-nationalism had consequences that
were as destructive, or more so, than nationalism.

This is critical. The
dominant political narrative portrays Nazism and, by extension,
right-wing politics generally as being uniquely sinister and associated
with violence and mass murder. Factual analysis doesn’t support that
claim, however.

The mass exterminations resulting from the political
prejudice of Communism were greater in scope than the Nazi extermination
based on racial prejudice. Throughout the post-WW2 era, right-wing
terrorism has been almost unknown in Europe, while left-wing terrorism
has been a chronic problem. In the present day, Europol issues annual
reports cataloguing terrorist incidents in Europe. From these reports it
is clear that right-wing terrorist incidents are rare to non-existent,
while dozens of left-wing terrorist incidents occur every year.
Highlighting the atrocities of Communism is one way of restoring balance
to public perception.

2) It would make it clear that when individuals who self-identify as
belonging to different peoples live in the same territory, they will,
ultimately, perceive themselves as being threatened by the interests and
actions of the other group and will try to ward off the perceived
threat from the other group.

This will cause unpleasantness to at least
one of the ethnic factions and very often both. And this is true
regardless of how highly qualified or economically successful the groups
are, refuting the core contention of the immigration apologists that
immigration should be assessed solely in terms of the obvious indicators
of economic success.

3) It would establish that Europeans can be victims as well as
perpetrators. Unlike anti-semitism, which is a marginal phenomenon,
anti-Europeanism is the dominant ideology of the world. It is so
overwhelmingly dominant that it is not even regarded as a distinct
ideology. It is simply regarded as “the norm”.

The emotional grip of
this ideology rests on tales of Europeans doing bad things to
non-Europeans in instances such as the Holocaust, the transatlantic
slave trade, imperialism, etc. These accounts are, to say the least,
unbalanced.

They leave out key facts such as that all societies we know
of practised slavery since the dawn of recorded time and that Europeans,
after indulging in the practice for a few hundreds years, were the ones
who stamped it out; that imperialism often brought betterment to the
countries that experienced it in ways that can be measured through
metrics such as life expectancy, population size, etc.

Standard accounts
of the Holocaust are also fundamentally unbalanced in that they neglect
to mention the key fact that Nazism was a reaction to Bolshevism, that
Bolshevism was an overwhelmingly Jewish phenomenon, and that millions of
Europeans, and almost every constituent element of European society,
were liquidated under Bolshevist rule. This was ethnic war wearing a
mask of morality.

4) It would destroy the destroy the harmful myth of the innocence of
Jews. The dominant narrative of the 20th century assigns Jews the role
of passive, innocent victims to a mindless, irrational evil.

This gives
them a special moral authority, which they have not hesitated to invoke
at every opportunity to push for open-borders immigration, diversity and
the de-Europeanisation of European societies more generally.

This may
not be as apparent in America. But in Europe, any attempt to limit
immigration, to discuss its harmful effects or to distinguish between
various streams of immigrants results in the Nazi card being played
almost instantly. Once the truth that fascism was a reaction to
Bolshevism, and Bolshevism was an overwhelmingly Jewish phenomenon, is
established in the public mind, that special moral authority disappears
for good.

The standard mythology is an extraordinarily powerful tool
that Jews can use to advance their own purposes. It is understandable
that any people would be reluctant to give up such an all-conquering
trump card. Nonetheless, truth demands that they do so.

5) It is simply a moral imperative that atrocities of this magnitude
be acknowledged and their perpetrators held to account.

Everything that
is true of the Holocaust – the memorials, the commemorative ceremonies,
the presence in textbooks and the popular imagination, the mantra of “We
must never forget” – is equally true of the atrocities of the
Bolshevist regimes, which were greater in scope than the Holocaust. It
is an abomination that these truths are not more generally known.
Imagine that we lived in a world where the Holocaust had been obscured
from history.

People were generally aware that there had been a war,
that bad things had happened and that a lot of people had been killed,
but nothing about a deliberate program to exterminate the Jews was known
to the ordinary person. Only a few people reading esoteric books would
occasionally stumble on this truth.

Whenever they tried to raise it for
public discussion, they would be immediately accused of paranoid
anti-Germanism, anti-Europeanism or anti-Christianism and silenced.
That’s the world we live in. In reverse. Anyone who denies Jewish guilt
in the atrocities of Communism after the facts have been presented to
them is the equivalent of a Holocaust Denier.

6) There is, it seems to me, inherent value in establishing the point
that the world is explicable, that there are reasons why things happen.
If we are to improve the world, we must first understand it.

A
narrative that postulates the existence of a mindless, irrational evil
that mysteriously blinks into existence from time to time is childlike,
primitive, absurd and un-European.

This is how Orientals see the world,
in the simplistic chiaroscuro of good vs. evil. A mature understanding
of the world can accommodate nuance and assign more morally complex
roles to history’s actors than the cartoon characterisation of goodies
vs. baddies.

The truth about the clashing totalitarianisms of 20th
century Europe is that Jews and Europeans mutually victimised one
another for reasons that were partially understandable, even if the
atrocious form their vengeance took is ultimately unpardonable. If we
wish to avert the possibility that such things could happen again, we
must understand why they happened the first time.

And the standard
narrative – that the Nazis came to power through a combination of
economic crisis and the spellbinding rhetoric of an evil demagogue – is
simply false. Such an account deprives Nazi atrocities of their meaning.

The Jews who died at Hitler’s hands are not honoured or ennobled by
false accounts of what led up to their murder. The opposite is true. The
truth is that at the heart of the clashing totalitarianisms of 20th
century Europe was ethnic conflict.

And this ethnic conflict only came
about because the principle of nationalism – different peoples living as
homogeneous groups in their own homelands under their own governmental
authority – had been violated. Jews were living outside of their
ancestral homeland ruled by non-Jews. Germans were living outside of
Germany ruled by non-Germans. The twin facts set off emotional chain
reactions culminating in tragedy.

Once I see general acknowledgement by Jews of their moral culpability
in this; once I see them express repentance and engage in the critical
and public moral self-examination that Europeans have engaged in with
regard to nationalism; once I see Jewish guilt in Communism become a
matter of public knowledge and parallels drawn with the modern Jewish
embrace of multiculturalism,

I will be happy to let this issue drop.
Until then, I will continue to talk about it. If that makes people
unhappy or uncomfortable, then they had best go elsewhere.